Why YSK: Spotify forces you either to pay, listen to ads or to find unofficial, potentially dangerous versions to use it. It’s better to find a free alternative, both for your wallet and for your peace of mind.

Introducing: ViMusic

Downloads: https://github.com/vfsfitvnm/ViMusic

  • Free and open source
  • No ads/trackers
  • Song lyrics
  • Music from both YouTube Music and YouTube
  • Weights 2MB or so
  • Beautiful UI and amazing UX

Cons: no high kbps streaming support

DO NOT TRY TO DOWNLOAD THE APP FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE ONES LISTED IN THEIR GITHUB PAGE. They are malware.

  • tinsukE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Potential bias: I’m a developer at Spotify.

    “Spotify forces you either to pay, listen to ads or to find unofficial, potentially dangerous versions to use it.”

    I don’t think the company forces you to do anything. It is their business model, how they can provide copyrighted music to you and have a share of the pie too.

    I’d say the very idea that Spotify is forcing you to pay with time and attention or money so you can have music conveniently streamed to your devices is a testament to the company’s success. It created this business model and fulfilled an apparently basic need to the point you think that charging for it is unfair.

    But “forcing” is too much. You can always buy discs, digital downloads and so.

    • Granbo's Holy Hotrod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Spotify took an existing thing and made it convenient and worse at the same time. How long before we are just listening to AI music? Since their cost is the artists…it’s only a matter of time.

      • Senokir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d also add that I wish Spotify paid the musicians better. Even relative to other platforms Spotify is pretty bad about that. Of course if you want to support the musician it’s always better to buy merch and music and stuff directly from them, but that isn’t really an excuse for streaming platforms to pay them so poorly. And I’m not suggesting that Spotify should just give the musician everything of course. They should get their cut too. But perhaps something even slightly more reasonable would be appreciated.

  • Apoidea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just pay for Spotify… £10 for access to almost every song ever published. People need to appreciate how good they have it.

  • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Adverts like this post shouldn’t be a think in “YSK”. It makes no sense.

    This app is literally just music piracy in a fancy shell anyways. Since there’s no YouTube ads displayed, artists get nothing. Think Spotify is bad at paying artists? Try… piracy…?

    • el_cordoba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s fair, but I am curious how much of streaming revenue go towards the artists and how much goes towards the labels.

        • WillyWonksters@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But did you know that when Spotify negotiated streaming rights from the labels, the labels only agreed if they could take an ownership stake in Spotify. Then the labels insisted on LOWER streaming fees for themselves. This shifts their income to come from their Spotify stake, which they don’t have to pay to artists.